That doesn't infer the same relationship of dependency, but infers a parallel independent relationship.
Not the same thing.
Primary / Replica.
That's not either, slave is not always a "replica" of the master, only in some contexts.
And a master does not even need a slave (like in the github case) - so git's master is not even like the master (who had slaves) that people are offended about.
It's more similar to the meaning of audio master, like a reference copy, not that branches are slave of it.
So in a master slave database setup, the slave does all the work while the master supervises?
That's... A really good argument.
So do I, but I wouldn't care enough to start a debate about it.
If you did care enough to debate about it, that's okay.